I’m just curious about these Parkers I see online and what the Dunhill workmanship on the stems tell us about when the pipe was made and about the quality of the pipes. Was Parker using the finest material for its stems or just putting the work in?
Parker Stem with Dunhill Workmanship?
- Thread starter milk
- Start date
The early Parkers were basically Dunhills that got stamped differently. Made in the same shop from the same wood supply by the same workers.
Parker was, in theory, Dunhill's "downstream line", meaning the OA guy would divert any completed Dunhill that wasn't as fully or tightly grained, or if a sand speck was discovered.
In reality, there's usually nothing that can be see that caused the downgrade. The most seasoned Dunhill and Parker collectors agree on that. Meaning in practice which stamp was chosen was probably more a matter of filling orders. lol
When Parker was truly spun off as a stand-alone brand that was no longer the case, though.
Parker was, in theory, Dunhill's "downstream line", meaning the OA guy would divert any completed Dunhill that wasn't as fully or tightly grained, or if a sand speck was discovered.
In reality, there's usually nothing that can be see that caused the downgrade. The most seasoned Dunhill and Parker collectors agree on that. Meaning in practice which stamp was chosen was probably more a matter of filling orders. lol
When Parker was truly spun off as a stand-alone brand that was no longer the case, though.
This Parker Freehand looks quite nice though :
That’s a beauty. Does it have a date? I see so many Parker’s and none of them have dates. It’s kind of frustrating. That 45 degree angle on the tenon is probably as good as a date. Lately, I’m obsessed with stems. I love a good vulcanite stem. It seems like - why make a pipe if the stem ain’t gonna be good and also: an inexpensive pipe like a Parker with a Dunhill quality stem is so nice! I won that Parker above on auction BTW. I couldn’t resist.
Hello Milk,
This is what the seller mailed me :
Trusted sources say that parker and Dunhill were officially connected only in the 50's and maybe in 60', then in 1967 Parker merged with Hardcastle in the pursuit to build a solid brand. That was when the things started to change a little bit for Parker.
Dunhill in 1978 bought Charatan and they were too busy to keep an eye on the Parker brand, even if the influence of Dunhill and commercial contacts were still there for Parker. So, why did I say that I think this pipe is from 90s? Because of the fact that even if in the 70s and the 80s Parker was not strictly linked to Dunhill, they really made pipes like they wanted to be them. Only in the late 80s and first 90s, Parker ganied the confidence needed to make pipes that weren't Dunhill's copy or alternatives.
Another clue is that Parker was reintroduced to the US market only in 1991, and this pipe looks like it could have fit very well the US demand of freehand pipes (the same demand that made Charatan great in the 60s and 70s).
So I think that this pipe could only be from late 80s to 90s.
Keep in mind that i am guessing a little bit, but I think that there is a logic behind this conclusion
This is what the seller mailed me :
Trusted sources say that parker and Dunhill were officially connected only in the 50's and maybe in 60', then in 1967 Parker merged with Hardcastle in the pursuit to build a solid brand. That was when the things started to change a little bit for Parker.
Dunhill in 1978 bought Charatan and they were too busy to keep an eye on the Parker brand, even if the influence of Dunhill and commercial contacts were still there for Parker. So, why did I say that I think this pipe is from 90s? Because of the fact that even if in the 70s and the 80s Parker was not strictly linked to Dunhill, they really made pipes like they wanted to be them. Only in the late 80s and first 90s, Parker ganied the confidence needed to make pipes that weren't Dunhill's copy or alternatives.
Another clue is that Parker was reintroduced to the US market only in 1991, and this pipe looks like it could have fit very well the US demand of freehand pipes (the same demand that made Charatan great in the 60s and 70s).
So I think that this pipe could only be from late 80s to 90s.
Keep in mind that i am guessing a little bit, but I think that there is a logic behind this conclusion
I see what you mean. Your information sounds right.
was that from an Italian ebay seller?
whats your thoughts on age?
edit
just read your thoughts above,1990's.Unless there are 2 the same its on the way to me.
Last edited:
Connected only in the 50's and 60's?
I stopped reading after that.
Your seller is confused or just making stuff up, Milk.
The best first cut history/background for stuff like this is pipedia:
Parker - Pipedia
I have 14 Dunhills (early '30s-late '90s) and 1 (from 1933) Parker. I've had lots of other Dunhills but no other Parkers. The Parker stem doesn't feel the same between my teeth. Or so my brain has convinced my teeth. The blast on the Parker is wonderful and, of course, it smokes fine.
That leaves me with questions. I’m waiting to get that bent billiard Parker above that I won. As the picture shows, the Parker stem has the Dunhill craftsmanship. I wonder why your ‘33 wouldn’t feel like it. When you look at the tenon, does it have that 45 degree angle where the tenon connects to the stem?
That’s not me. That’s Orlandofurioso. My pipe came from Yahoo Japan. I understand about Parker-Dunhill as far as what Pipedia says. What I don’t understand is when exactly the relationship ends. Pipedia seems to say 50s. I’m thinking my pipe can’t be later then?Connected only in the 50's and 60's?
I stopped reading after that.
Your seller is confused or just making stuff up, Milk.
The best first cut history/background for stuff like this is pipedia:
Parker - Pipedia
pipedia.org
Got it. (Including included inclusions that refer to potentially inclusionary post-referential references in an inclusificated manner becomes confusing after a while... These here newfangled computer widgets will always find a way to confusify things, eh? )
For what it's worth, top to bottom, '33 Parker stem; '38 Dunhill; '57 Dunhill.
It just *feels* different; a little slicker, a little less solid. Or so it seemed to me from the first time I put it in my mouth. Could absolutely be my imagination, or the balance of pipe to stem, or...
Last edited:
I’m a newbie but Briarlee was saying in another thread that prewar rubber was just rubber. I don’t know anything. The Parker stem actually looks really nice. Why does the Cumberland look so messy? I wish I had a Cumberland.
I mean as opposed to all the grades of vulcanite that are on the market now. Did the Dunhill factory have different grades of vulcanite? From what the experts are saying, it sounds like a 30s or 50s Parkers stem should be similar to a Dunhill one. As my photo shows, it certainly looks the same.